Multiplicity
of Kobres Indictment

In the indictment, each count represents a
different date on the calendar, not a separate and distinct offense, as required by law.

'"Count' and 'charge' when used
relative to allegations in an indictment or information are synonymous". State
v. Puckett, 39N.M. 511, 50 P.2d 964, 965, Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Pg.
348. With respect to a criminal law, "charge" means "...the specific
crime the defendant is accused of committing.". Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition, Pg. 233.

Specifically, I have been charged with
making radio transmissions using one transmitter, located in one physical position, on one
frequency, without a license. The additional counts were obtained by the government
in order to raise the charge to felony level (malicious prosecution).

Multiplicity is the charging of a single
offense in several counts of the indictment... A multiplicitous indictment raises
the spector of multiple punishment for a single offense, and can prejudice the jury by
suggesting that more than one crime was committed. United States v. Gullett,
713 F.2d 1203, 1211-12 (6th Cir. 1983); United States v. Cauble, 706
F.2d 1322, 1334 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Stanfa, 685 F.2d 85, 86-87 (3rd
Cir. 1982); and numerous others.

The extra counts were heaped on for several
reasons. They are used as a sensation factor by the television media, which
prejudices the public against the targeted individual. Without the extra 13 counts
piled on top there would be even less justification to bring the case into an already
overloaded court system. They are also used as bargaining chips to induce the target
to accept a plea bargain. I was offered a deal wherein I could plead guilty to one
count and not have a full jury trial. But I had not violated any constitutional
principle so I declined.

By pretending that I operated 14 broadcast
stations without a license, it raised the possibility of being sentenced to 28 years in
prison and/or a $2.8M fine. The mindless media did its part, capitalizing on the
sensation of the event while simultaneously prejudicing my case and with it, my future.

The multiplicitous indictment violated the
spirit and intent of Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Attorney
Becraft submitted a motion requesting indictment counts two through fourteen be dismissed
due to multiplicity. Judge Adams summarily denied the motion without explanation.